Kissinger Advises Obama Against Siding with ISIS Terrorists in Syria
In an op-ed piece written in Wall Street Journal on October 16, Henry Kissinger admits what many of us have been saying for the past three years, which is that US priority in Syria has not been to defeat ISIS, but to use the terror organization to try and overthrow the government. This is the clearest indication ever, by someone who’s still consulted by U.S. policy makers and has inside information, of US reluctance to see Islamic State or ISIS terrorists defeated in Syria. On the contrary, according to Kissinger, the U.S. policy towards ISIS has been “inconclusive”: “The destruction of ISIS”, writes Kissinger, “is more urgent than the overthrow of Bashar Assad, who has already lost over half of the area he once controlled. Making sure that this territory does not become a permanent terrorist haven must have precedence. The current inconclusive U.S. military effort risks serving as a recruitment vehicle for ISIS as having stood up to American might”. And the results speak for themselves. More than a year of bombing in Syria, ostensibly to wipe out ISIS, left the organization stronger than ever, which forced the Russians to intervene. This is despite all US claims that their bombing campaign was directed against ISIS.
Kissinger advises against letting ISIS win tbe battle against the Syrian government, which is what Obama is trying to do: “The reconquered territories should be restored to the local Sunni rule that existed there before the disintegration of both Iraqi and Syrian sovereignty. As the terrorist region is being dismantled and brought under nonradical political control, the future of the Syrian state should be dealt with concurrently. A federal structure could then be built between the Alawite and Sunni portions”, which is what the Russians have been proposing.
Despite expressing regret and consternation about Russia’s increased role and stature in the region which, to his dismay, challenges the U.S. leadership, Kissinger admits that Russians have a legitimate concern about the spread of Islamist terrorism – which apparently is only a secondary concern, if that, to the U.S., whose primary focus is regime change in Damascus. He writes: “Russia’s principal concern is that the Assad regime’s collapse could reproduce the chaos of Libya, bring ISIS into power in Damascus, and turn all of Syria into a haven for terrorist operations, reaching into Muslim regions inside Russia’s southern border in the Caucasus and elsewhere”.
What Kissinger, who has knowledge of US plans and objectives, is saying is that the U.S. should stop trying to prevent the defeat of ISIS in the hands of Russia. He’s also admitting that the U.S. strategy of overthrowing any Middle Eastern government that acts independently of Washington is backfiring on the U.S. and fails to create a region compliant with US wishes. Speaking of decades past, he says through “US leadership”, “Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States were our allies”, and “the Russian military presence” had “disappeared from the region”. But, “that geopolitical pattern is now in shambles. Four states in the region have ceased to function as sovereign. Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq have become targets for nonstate movements seeking to impose their rule”.
He also indicates that “the Arab-Israeli war of 1973” helped “in stabilizing the Middle East order” to US advantage: “Russia’s unilateral military action in Syria is the latest symptom of the disintegration of the American role in stabilizing the Middle East order that emerged from the Arab-Israeli war of 1973”.
All in all, he’s complaining about the reduced ability of the U.S. to influence events in the region and about the increased role of Russia. At the same time, he’s also admitting that U.S. policy of non-stop regime change, which includes making alliances with terror organizations, which he himself was an active advocate for during his tenure as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in 1970’s, is backfiring on the U.S. and destabilizing the region. But, the current U.S. policy makers see things somewhat differently. The current U.S. policy gives precedence to destroying any sovereign nation that doesn’t ally itself with the U.S.-Israel-Saudi Arabia axis towards achieving a total and unchallenged U.S. hegemony, over preventing the spread of Islamist terrorism, which threatens to engulf the region in more wars and which also can threaten Russia itself, which is something the U.S. is well aware of and intends to use against Russia to try and destabilize it, as it did against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1980’s. The U.S. doesn’t mind all the wars and massacres resulting from increased terrorism. They use war and terror whenever other options become too difficult or impractical. Kissinger himself did it during his time in government. But, the current US policy is that if they can’t do regime change in a “non-friendly” country, they’re happy to destroy it and make it ungovernable. The spread of terrorism is only a secondary concern. The primary focus remains regime change with all means necessary and available.